ArticleCanadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur2025
The stigmatization of patients with chronic pain due to assessed exaggeration of symptoms.
Article in Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with chronic pain that cannot be explained by tissue abnormality may be accused of symptom amplification and at worst malingering. This is particularly relevant in the medicolegal setting where legal decisions are highly dependent on objective and validated information, conditions mostly lacking in the setting of chronic pain. When evaluations are conducted by assessors less familiar with current knowledge of pain mechanisms, subjective complaints of pain and associated symptoms such as fatigue and cognitive difficulties, are at risk of being misinterpreted leading to bias and stigmatization. In this commentary we will highlight some of the pitfalls that erroneously lead to a biased assessment of pain severity including failure to pay attention to psychological state and sociocultural influences, application of poorly reliable physical maneuvers, and use of neurocognitive testing of intentional cognitive dysfunction as a surrogate for dishonesty in pain and functional impairment report. Concerns about misinterpretation of exaggeration in persons with chronic pain are highlighted by recent report of symptom exaggeration in up to two thirds of those attending for an independent medical evaluation. Directives to help the medical assessor to provide pertinent information that will assist the courts in reaching a fair decision are discussed, with emphasis on need for a comprehensive assessment of biosocial factors, contextual variables and nonphysical evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.